Complainant is Monabanq SA, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Vetur Loan, Benin. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 22, 2021. On January 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On January 25, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on February 2, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 5, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 7, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 8, 2021. The Center appointed Christopher S. Gibson as the sole panelist in this matter on March 15, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a French banking company and subsidiary of the leading banking group, Crédit Mutuel CIC. Created in 2006, Complainant operates a completely online banking business through its website at “www.monabanq.com” and through a mobile application using the same name, “Monabanq”. Complainant offers online bank and insurance services to individuals and professionals. Complainant has provided links to its website with additional details about its operations. Complainant is the registered owner of the following MONABANQ trademarks in the European Union (“EU”) and in other countries: - MONABANQ, French semi-figurative trademark No. 3774308 registered on October 14, 2010 in class 41; Complainant (or its subsidiary Euro Information) has registered numerous domain names using the mark MONABANQ, including: - Pursuant to the notice sent by WIPO to Complainant on February 2, 2021, Respondent was identified as Vetur Loan, located in Benin. Complainant conducted a search in the Register of Commerce for Benin, as well as a Google search for “Vetur Loan”, but found no results for this name. Complainant confirms that it has no business relations with an entity named Vetur Loan and that Respondent is using the trademark MONABANQ without Complainant’s authorization. Respondent registered the five Domain Names on the following dates: - (i) Identical or confusingly similar Complainant emphasizes that it has rights arising from its trademarks and domain names for the fanciful word, MONABANQ, all arising prior to the registration of the Domain Names. The MONABANQ trademark is regularly cited by the press, specialized or not, as among the best-known online banks in France. These publications support that the MONABANQ brand has established a reputation with consumers and the French public. One UDRP panel has already indicated that the mark MONABANQ enjoys a strong reputation in France. See MONABANQ SA v. Marco Kotchon,WIPO Case No. D2020-0252. Complainant asserts that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to its MONABANQ trademark and to its domain names, especially Accordingly, Complainant submits that the Domain Names refer clearly to Complainant’s trademark and the addition of minor descriptive elements does nothing to distinguish the Domain Names from Complainant’s trademark MONABANQ and its domain name In view of this analysis, Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark MONABANQ in which Complainant has rights. (ii) Rights or legitimate interests Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not related in any way to Complainant’s business. No license or authorization has been granted to Respondent to make any use of or apply for registration of the Domain Names. Further, Complainant claims that Respondent is not currently and has never been known by the word “mona” or by the Domain Names, despite that websites linked to some of the Domain Names pretend to be actual businesses associated with these names. Complainant indicates that while two of the Domain Names According to the information provided by the Center to the parties on February 2, 2021, the Complainant considers the possibility of Respondent being a company of Benin named “Vetur Loan”. Complainant’s searches in the Register of Commerce for Benin and on Google have failed to disclose the legal existence of this company. Respondent appears to have no legal existence, so it cannot have any right or legitimate interest as a banking business. Complainant claims that Respondent has built a website and reproduced it under different names and Domain Names, pretending to be related to the Crédit Mutuel Group. Further, regarding the business carried out by Respondent, it is inconceivable that Respondent might have been using the Domain Names for any legal activity; on the contrary, Complainant urges that it is likely Respondent’s aim was to collect login, passwords and personal data through the pages of the websites, probably for fraudulent purposes such as scamming or personal data concealment. Such illegal activity never gives rise to rights or legitimate interests. Complainant also claims that the two inactive Domain Names might have been used or are intended to be used in the same pattern. None of the Domain Names has been used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Considering this analysis, Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights and no legitimate interests in the Domain Names. (iii) Registered and used in bad faith Respondent registered the Domain Names during 2020. Complainant has owned trademark rights for its MONABANQ mark in the EU and in several other countries since 2006; these trademark rights predate the Domain Names by more than 14 years. Complainant has already established a strong presence on the Internet, as its entire business operates online through the website at “www.monabanq.com”. Accordingly, Respondent should have been aware of Complainant and its online business, as it is easy to find the MONABANQ mark through a browser search. Further, MONABANQ has a strong reputation, as it is a leading online bank in France. Complainant states the trademark MONABANQ, especially the first part MONA, is strongly distinctive and arbitrary for the services offered. MONABANQ is also fanciful, including the term “banq”, especially as the French word for that business is “banque”. Complainant is the sole company using the spelling “banq”. The descriptive word “bank” is very close to “banq” and the combination of the words “mona” or “mora” and “bank” with other words (i.e., inter, investment, credit, financial) in the Domain Names reminds one immediately of the trademark MONABANQ. Complainant urges that given the distinctiveness of its trademarks, the similarities between those marks and the Domain Names cannot have occurred by chance. Complainant claims that Respondent registered the Domain Names with full knowledge of Complainant’s trademark, which is evidence of bad faith registration. Further, Respondent registered not just one but five Domain Names that imitate Complainant’s mark MONABANQ; this cannot more be considered the result of mere chance and is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. There is no doubt Respondent intentionally registered each of the Domain Names for its potential to cause confusion with Complainant’s marks. Further, as mentioned above, the Complainant considered that Respondent could be a company of Benin, named Vetur Loan. However, this company seems to have no legal existence, which cannot be the case in the highly regulated banking business. In addition, Respondent was already involved in a previous UDRP case with similar circumstances: Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / VETUR LOAN, Collosal inc,WIPO Case No. D2020-0632. There, the panel considered that the disputed domain name was similar to a well-known French bank trademark, CIC; that Respondent did not show any right or legitimate interest in the domain name; and that Respondent was found to have registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, Respondent seems to be engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations. This combination of facts demonstrate the bad faith registration of the Domain Names. Complainant also contends that Respondent’s use of the Domain Names constitutes bad faith use, as it is creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s business and MONABANQ mark. At the time of filing the Complaint, three of the Domain Names, Complainant states that these Domain Names have undoubtedly been registered together and used to mislead Internet users looking for Complainant’s services. The use of the Domain Names refers to Complainant in several ways and leads Internet users to believe that they are on Complainant’s official website, especially since the sites allegedly offer financial services similar to Complainant’s business. This is an evident attempt at online passing off, or at least an attempt to create sufficient confusion in the Internet user’s mind to gain their confidence and interact with them through the websites. Complainant contends this use supports a finding that Respondent has registered the Domain Names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. In addition, Complainant emphasizes that Respondent has specified physical addresses on its websites, referring to locations in Switzerland and France. While the banking business is strongly monitored by national authorities in these countries and it is mandatory to register in specific registers, Complainant has conducted searches in the official registers, but found that none of the names mentioned on Respondent’s websites are listed. The only conclusion is that Respondent’s activities are not registered and, consequently, are illegal. Such use of the Domain Names is clearly intended to take advantage of confusion with Complainant’s trademark to gain the Internet users’ confidence for fraudulent purposes, like perpetrating a fraud, phishing or personal data theft. Such illegal use is undoubtedly bad faith use. The two remaining Domain Names, Complainant submits that all of these factors apply in this case to Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Names Finally, Complainant points out that, as a financial services group, it continually faces counterfeiting and phishing attempts, which is an egregious example of bad faith use. Complainant has to prevent these attempts, while protecting its clients from counterfeiting and fraud. All of these circumstances, as well as Complainant well-established trademarks, demonstrate that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed on its Complaint, Complainant must demonstrate that the three elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied. These elements are that: (i) the Domain Names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and (iii) Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established that it has well-established rights in its registered MONABANQ trademarks. The Panel finds that all of the Domain Names incorporate the distinctive element “mona” (or close substitute “mora”) derived from Complainant’s marks, while adding the word “bank”, instead of “banq”. This combination in the Domain Name creates a confusing similarity with Complainant’s MONABANQ mark. The Domain Names include certain other words in various placements – “inter”, “investment”, “credit”, and “financial” – but the addition of these words does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), which states, “where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.” Accordingly, the Panel finds that each of the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Regarding the second element of the Policy, section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, states, “where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”. Here, the Panel determines that Complainant has made out a prima facie case, while Respondent has failed to reply to Complainant’s contentions. The Panel finds that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s MONABANQ trademarks; that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names; that Respondent has not used the Domain Names for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, nor used them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services – instead, the Domain Names are either inactive (two of them) or link to websites (three of them) that appear to be part of a fraudulent scheme to attract Internet users and collect their personal data. The registration data for Respondent (as a supposed company, Vetur Loan, located in Benin) also appears to be false. Given the reputation and distinctiveness of Complainant’s marks, Respondent’s use of the Domain Names in these ways does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in them. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1 (“Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names, which has not been rebutted by Respondent. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established the second element of the Policy in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant demonstrates that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1, states, “bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark”. Here, the Panel determines that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Based on the evidence, there is little doubt that Respondent, when it registered the Domain Names at various times during 2020, was aware of Complainant and its MONABANQ marks, and intentionally targeted those marks, when registering the Domain Names. As noted above, Respondent registered the Domain Names, which incorporate the distinctive element “mona” (or close substitute “mora”) derived from Complainant’s marks, while adding the word “bank”, instead of Complainant’s term, “banq”. This combination in the Domain Name, along with certain other words in various placements – “inter”, “investment”, “credit”, and “financial” – creates an overall impression that the Domain Names refer to Complainant and its services. Indeed, the additional words relate to Complainant’s banking and financial services. The Domain Names have no independent dictionary word meaning. Thus, given the distinctiveness of Complainant’s MONABANQ marks, the timing of the registration of the Domain Names many years after Complainant had establish rights in its MONABANQ marks, and the fact that the Domain Names are so obviously connected with Complainant’s marks, the Panel considers that the only logical conclusion is that Respondent targeted Complainant and its marks when registering the Domain Names. See Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc./PrivacyProtect.org,WIPO Case No. D2013-2098 (finding that it was unlikely that the respondent was unaware of complainant and its ACCENTURE mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered). This point is further confirmed by Respondent’s use of the Domain Names. As discussed above, three of the Domain Names, In conclusion, in this case, where Respondent failed to submit a reply to Complainant’s contentions, the Panel determines that, for all of the above reasons, the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Names, Christopher S. Gibson
- MONABANQ, EU semi-figurative trademark No. 18064036 registered on May 14, 2019, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, and 38;
- MONABANQ, International semi-figurative trademark No. 1089672 registered on April 14, 2011 in classes 38 and 41;
- MONABANQ, EU trademark No. 5601224 registered on December 19, 2006, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38;
- MONABANQ.COM, International trademark No. 943266 registered on October 9, 2007.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sole Panelist
Date: April 6, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy